On 07/07/2020 12.27, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
>
> On 07/07/2020 12:10, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> Move the uc->tchan/rchan checks to the IO wrappers itself instead of
>> calling the functions with tchan/rchan directly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c | 163 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c b/drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c
>> index 7eae3a3d0703..8b9a3829abc2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma/ti/k3-udma.c
>> @@ -282,51 +282,49 @@ static inline void udma_update_bits(void __iomem
>> *base, int reg,
>> }
>> /* TCHANRT */
>> -static inline u32 udma_tchanrt_read(struct udma_tchan *tchan, int reg)
>> +static inline u32 udma_tchanrt_read(struct udma_chan *uc, int reg)
>> {
>> - if (!tchan)
>> + if (!uc || !uc->tchan)
>> return 0;
>
> In general I have no objections, but
> do you need those checks at all? can it ever happen?
right, it is highly unlikely that uc is NULL. iow it is never NULL.
I'll drop the !uc checks.
Thanks,
- Péter
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
